2 more women die in London

[jonny jeez]

The "explanations" being offered are largely not explanations but assertions of masculine superiority. And as @User points out, they're not being "flamed" but assertively, and largely politely, challenged.

Some might be. I don't think mine was in the slightest. It actually berates the Male ego and simply suggests that in this case, the "macho" inclination of being stupid might create an unintentional difference.

That it can be read as sexist isn't my problem. This thread is about the disproportionate levels of deaths by gender, so discussing Gender is to be expected.

 

[jonny jeez]

Maybe the individuals (in most cases men) driving the mostly large vehicles are impatient ignorant twunts and the women who have fallen under their wheels were simply extremely unlucky enough to have been in the very wrong place at the very wrong time when these twunts cocked up in their road positioning, awareness, driving style, whatever It's the drivers who are to blame not the female (or indeed male) victims

I certainly don't think my gender, size (I'm as big if not bigger than a lot of blokes) or spatial awareness (I was riding along in strong secondary, not squeezing through a gap or filtering) had anything to do with the fact I was knocked off for example

For you personally I'm sure you are right.

But sheer luck doesn't explain the disproportionate overall figures. Worse, it feels like an excuse to ignore the issue and bury our heads in the sand.

Something is going on here and I don't believe its chance.

 

[jefmcg]

While and whilst are used pretty much interchangeably. I prefer using while to mean at the same time and whilst to indicate an contrasting situation but that's just a personal choice.

No, it's not while/whilst. It's that I would take "men are proportionally more likely to be killed whilst cycling than women" as "men are more to be killed during the times they are cycling than women are during the times they are cycling." I'd leave "whilst" out altogether if I meant "more men die cycling than women"

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

No, it's not while/whilst. It's that I would take "men are proportionally more likely to be killed whilst cycling than women" as "men are more to be killed during the times they are cycling than women are during the times they are cycling." I'd leave "whilst" out altogether if I meant "more men die cycling than women"

Ok, I misunderstood the confusion. I'd better get back to my early dinner....

 

[Profpointy]

Discussing gender is fine. It is the looking to perceived gender stereotypes, especially when satisfied that there is no need to look any further, that is not.

By my reading jeez did the first. "being satisfied no need to look further" is your words and bears not relation to what he wrote.

It's been stated by a few people that women cyclists are disproportionately killed. I don't know if this is right, but the claim with some evidence has been made. Legitimate to argue either way, without arguing sexism

Jeez made a moderate point that women may (on average) tend to be timid and hug the gutter more (for instance). Ok anecdote rather than evidence but I have to say that's my impression too. Of course we may both be percieving what we expect to see rather than it being true. Either way it's a traversty to attack the suggestion as being sexist piggery, or to claim mansplaining or whatever.

Surely asking if there is an increased cycle ridk for women, and if so, why is an important thing.

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting women shouldn't ride or anything

 

[Profpointy]

You are quite right it doesn't. That was because the comment was not a direct reply to his post but a comment on other posts. As many posts have been deleted, the meaning has become a bit blurred.

Fair enough. I do sometimes lose track when it gets to a he-said, she said.

 

[summerdays]

Mod Note: as mentioned a number of posts have been deleted. Hopefully it generally makes sense, otherwise I can put it in the mod area for us to check over later.

 

[jonny jeez]

You are quite right it doesn't. That was because the comment was not a direct reply to his post but a comment on other posts. As many posts have been deleted, the meaning has become a bit blurred.

If it wasn't a direct reply to my post then why did you use the direct reply to my post function...to make your comment.

No need for rudeness

 

[Blue Hills]

Glad to have given you a different angle to the pervasive "they should be more assertive" victim blaming, which ironically got much worse after I posted.

No, but apparently it does to you.

Which circles are these? I guess you mean white male middle aged elite.

Finding the correct approach to a problem will indeed find the best solution.

Another strawman.

Not I, but this thread is.

The weight of your assumptions about me and my thought process is staggering. I'd suggest you look at what I have put forward, rather than who I am.

Thank you for highlighting my comments.
I stand by them.

 

[Tin Pot]

Thank you for highlighting my comments.
I stand by them.

Anytime.

 

[Blue Hills]

I don't know, at a guess no. of men beaten to death by their wife in the last 12 months would be approximating zero. Not so for the inverse, I suspect.

But I'm not sure a statistical comparison would be useful, so much as the approach to the problem. Domestic violence is no longer approached from a "what was she doing wrong" point of view, perhaps the same should be the case when it comes to killing them with cars.

Er, i fail to see what the extremely serious subject of domestic violence has to do with this.
And are you saying that when there is a collision the circumstances should not be looked at but that the driver of the vehicle is presumed guilty?
Does your scenario include the idea that the driver of the vehicle might be a woman?

 

[jonny jeez]

By my reading jeez did the first. "being satisfied no need to look further" is your words and bears not relation to what he wrote.

It's been stated by a few people that women cyclists are disproportionately killed. I don't know if this is right, but the claim with some evidence has been made. Legitimate to argue either way, without arguing sexism

Jeez made a moderate point that women may (on average) tend to be timid and hug the gutter more (for instance). Ok anecdote rather than evidence but I have to say that's my impression too. Of course we may both be percieving what we expect to see rather than it being true. Either way it's a traversty to attack the suggestion as being sexist piggery, or to claim mansplaining or whatever.

Surely asking if there is an increased cycle ridk for women, and if so, why is an important thing.

Just to be clear, no one is suggesting women shouldn't ride or anything

I appreciate your support of my post, thanks for helping get my point across... but to clarify, I really am not suggesting that women riders are in any way being timid, I am suggesting that they might be more likely to adhere to the rules that have been set down. I believe these rules to be the issue and that by pure happenstance of ego, men seem more likely to avoid these rules.

But yes its totally anecdotal and I agree with @jefmcg that this is an issue that deserves attention, whether we find that attention uncomfortable or not.

 

[jonny jeez]

What a muddle. Are we women meant to be more like men (pace Rex Harrison) and behave recklessly, disregarding the rules because they are dangerous? Or are we to be predictable and gracious like good girls? When we are 'assertive', is that the same thing as when we are accused of being 'aggressive'?

Why cant women be can be both assertive and predictable in their riding. My comment has nothing at all to do with being "good Girls" and I know plenty of people that cant be assertive without being aggressive...both Men and Women.

 

[jonny jeez]

The simple fact is more women then men are proportionately being killed in traffic.

its a fact...but not a simple one.

yellow smiley thing....

 

[fossyant]

its a fact...but not a simple one.

yellow smiley thing....

Something needs doing, as it's not reflective of the rest of the UK. Maybe there are more in-experienced cyclists in London due to your 'critical mass' of cyclists making people feel safer, plus the sheer number of big vehicles, including construction traffic on roads not designed for it.

London is a sprawling city. Most UK cities are a mile or two in radius and then you hit suburbia... that must affect it.